At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason. (A website by Trevor Grant Thomas designed to inform the world from a Christian conservative worldview, and to make new and better disciples of Jesus Christ.)
The ultimate question for us all: What shall I do with Jesus? (Matt. 27:22)

Saturday, October 26, 2013

At the beginning of the movie “Van Helsing,” Dracula,
sounding much like a faithful member of today’s left, joyfully exclaims to Dr.
Frankenstein that his monster, just brought to life, is a “victory of science
over God.” Writing in the UK’s Guardian, Julian
Baggini declared that any religion “that seeks to explain the hows of the universe…is competing with science.
In such contests science always wins, hands down, and the only way out is to
claim a priority for faith over evidence, or the Bible over the lab.”

Scientist and
former White House senior policy advisor Jeff Schweitzer recently declared that
“Religion and science are incompatible at every level. The two seek different
answers to separate questions using fundamentally and inherently incompatible
methods. Nothing can truly bring the two together without sacrificing
intellectual honesty.”

Renowned Darwinist Jerry Coyne, who also believes that
religion and science are fundamentally incompatible, recently
made the asinine and ignorant conclusion that “all the achievements of both
ancient and modern science have been made by explicitly rejecting the theistic
view that God has a hand in the universe, and that religion, if it ever did
inspire scientific research, doesn’t do so any longer.”

The word “science” is derived from the Latin word
“scientia,” meaning “knowledge.” All knowledge is derived from certain governing
presuppositions. In other words, each side of every issue that human beings
debate ultimately has certain un-provable assumptions upon which they must
eventually rely. As the late philosopher, Dr. Greg Bahnsen, put it, “At the
most fundamental level of everyone's thinking and beliefs there are primary convictions
about reality, man, the world, knowledge, truth, behavior, and such things. Convictions
about which all other experience is organized, interpreted, and applied.”

Likewise, theologian, author, and pastor, R.C. Sproul,
recently discussed the “lasting impression” that the book, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science, which he read over
50 years ago, had made upon him. He noted that the book was so influential to
him because it “clearly set forth the importance of understanding that all
scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises.”

The concept of “primary convictions” or presupposed
“philosophical premises” is important when it comes to the nonsense that is
religion vs. science. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive arenas
where we must leave one completely behind as we cross over into the other.

Anyone can practice good science while operating from a
biblical worldview (such as Pasteur, Pascal, Newton, Kepler, et al). If this is not the
case, then how did Newton,
considered by many the greatest scientist of all time, ever invent calculus and
develop his laws of motion and universal gravitation while operating from a
strict biblical worldview? Newton
also calculated the age of the earth to be only a few thousand years old and
declared, “For an educated man…any suggestion that the human past extended back
further than 6,000 years was a vain and foolish speculation.”

If science and religion are “fundamentally incompatible,”
how did Pasteur, the father of modern medicine and a firm believer in God and
His Word, ever discover the principles of vaccination, fermentation, and
pasteurization? If, as Coyne declares, Darwinian evolution is “biology’s
greatest theory,” then why did Pasteur directly oppose Darwin and his theory, all the while
conducting experiments to enhance the Law of Biogenesis?

Just as there were centuries ago, today there are scientists
with a biblical worldview in every field of science. They go to school, study, graduate;
they go to church, worship, pray, read (and believe) Scripture; and they go to
work, conduct research, develop products, heal the sick; all the while
operating completely unfettered (except by the opposition they endure from the
enemies of faith) in their fields.

Likewise, some things involving matters of faith can be
tested (observed, measured, and repeated). There is bountiful evidence (the
field of archaeology has been a great friend to Christianity) for everything I
believe about God and His creation.In other words, there is no battle between science and
religion. The only competition that exists when it comes to our pursuit of knowledge
and truth lies in our worldviews, or one might say, our presupposed “philosophical premises.”

Nevertheless, the idea that there is some battle between
science and religion—especially Christianity—simply won’t go away. According to today's left, politicians,
judges, military officers, policemen, teachers, and so forth are never to be
guided by religion, but always by “science.” Thus, with their common liberal
worldview (that is extremely hostile to religion—especially Christianity), we
now have a disastrous marriage between the liberals who dominate “modern
science” and those who dominate Big Government.

I wonder if “geniuses” such as Baggini, Schweitzer, and
Coyne applied their massive intellectual powers to the merits of the disaster
that is now Obamacare, or to the debate over when human life begins, or to the many dangers of homosexual behavior, or to the myth of anthropogenic global warming. Wouldn’t
you want to wager that, in spite of what many see as clear moral and scientific
evidence to the contrary, such “scientists” abandon almost all reason and tow
the liberal line when it comes to issues such as health-care, abortion,
homosexuality, marriage, guns, and “climate change”?

Writing about the “great issues” of his day, C.S. Lewis
wrote in 1940, “Lord! How I loathe great issues…Could one start a Stagnation
Party— which at General Elections would boast that during its term of office no
event of the least importance had taken place?” Senior Fellow at the Discovery
Institute, John G. West writes that “According to stepson David Gresham, Lewis
was skeptical of politicians and not really interested in current events. His
concern was not policy but principle; political problems of the day were
interesting to him only insofar as they involved matters that endured.”

Nevertheless, West adds that Lewis did indeed have a “great
deal” to say about politics, writing about such things as crime, obscenity, capital
punishment, communism, fascism, socialism, war, the welfare state, and so on.
West noted that, “It is precisely because Lewis was so uninterested in ordinary
political affairs that he has so much to tell us about politics in the broad
sense of the term. By avoiding the partisan strife of his own time, he was able
to articulate enduring political standards for all time.”

Nowhere is this clearer, West states, than in Lewis’
writings on tyranny and morality. According to West, Lewis was particularly
concerned with the tyranny that could result from the union of modern science
and the modern state.

Lewis disputed the notion that we must rely on the counsel
of scientists because only they have the answers to today's complicated
problems. He did not dispute their knowledge, but concluded that most of it was
irrelevant. In West’s words, “Political problems are preeminently moral
problems, and scientists are not equipped to function as moralists.” Lewis
added that, “I dread specialists in power [such as our now numerous political
“czars”] because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects.
Let scientists tell us about sciences. But government involves questions about
the good for man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and
on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value.”

What such “specialists in power” do is give a Big Government,
which is already too willing to encroach on our lives, even more of a reason
for doing so. This is especially true in times of crisis. (“Never let a crisis
go to waste,” right?) In such times many of us are far too eager to become what
Lewis called in 1958 “Willing Slaves of the Welfare State.”

Typically, in order for any oligarchy effectively to rise
and rule, it needs some “extreme peril,” something to cure, some desperate need
that the rulers promise to fulfill. As Lewis asked, is this not “the ideal
opportunity for enslavement?”

When a generation lives in fear or dread of some looming
crisis or when a society is made to believe that someone else can provide the
things that it cannot live without, is this not the opportunity for those who
seek to rule over us to be seen as liberators rather than the tyrants that they
are? Were not Stalin and Hitler first seen as saviors and deliverers?

Following two world wars and in the midst of a cold war,
Lewis wrote that “The increasing complexity and precariousness of our economic
life have forced Government to take over many spheres of activity once left to
choice or chance…The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us
good or make us good…Read Montaigne; that’s the voice of a man with his legs
under his own table, eating mutton and turnips raised on his own land. Who will
talk like that when the State is everyone’s schoolmaster and employer?”

To “fix” our problems (whether real or perceived) and to
exert the power and influence necessary, the new ruling class must more and
more rely on the “experts.” This means that the politicians must increasingly
rely on the knowledge and advice of scientists, until, in the end, the
politicians become “merely the scientists’ puppets.”

Thus, we get the motto of the technocrats: “only
science can save us now.” Whether it is global warming, stem-cell research,
the beginning of life, healthcare, crime, homosexuality and marriage, or even
gun control or economic policies, the technocrats have the answers. After all,
as Lewis also noted, “If we are to be mothered, mother must know best.”

In other words, many of our politicians (and scientists
alike) are surrendering themselves to scientism. Scientism is not science. It
is an ideology that is often confused with science. It is, rather, an abuse of
the scientific method and scientific authority.

Scientism can also be classified as a religion. It is a
religion with many denominations: Darwinism, environmentalism, feminism,
hedonism, humanism, Marxism, socialism, and so on. How many Americans now find
their fulfillment and purpose in these movements? They celebrate Earth Day and
Darwin Day. They boldly assert, “Science
is my Savior.”

Also, scientism arrogantly attempts to lift itself above all
other beliefs and disciplines—philosophy and theology included. “Philosophy is
dead,” declared Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book The Grand Design. It is dead because, “Philosophy has not kept up
with modern developments in science, particularly physics.”

Thus, as we see, scientism seeks to elevate the methods of
natural science to a level where it is the bar by which every other
intellectual discipline is held. Scientism ridicules faith and religion and
tells us that “God is dead.” Scientism tells us that the “debate is over,” so
shut up and get in line.

And, of course, scientism leads us to technocracy. “I dread
government in the name of science,” said Lewis. “That is how tyrannies come
in.” What a profound conclusion! How many of us have been duped in the name of
“science”? How many of us cower and yield, because, well, if the “scientists”
(and then the politicians) tell us so, then it must be so?

We can see the results: generations are taught that life began
without God; that the use of fossil fuels is warming the earth; that
homosexuality is genetic and unchangeable; that abortion is not really the
taking of a life; that marriage is whatever we want it to be; that confiscating
the wealth of some to give to others is “fair;” that guns are evil; and so on.
Of course, we then get laws and official government policy based on such
conclusions.

Sadly, too many of us then grow accustomed to our chains. We
become children, or pupils of the State (like “Julia”). We continue to
elect leaders who perpetuate the cycle of the “Welfare State” based
significantly on the lies of scientism. It’s time for Americans to wake up to
this perversion of science and return science, faith, philosophy, and by all
means, common sense, to their proper place.

Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Right up there with abortion, homosexuality, and man-made
global warming, few things rally liberals like “corporate greed.” Writing
for Salon.com earlier this year, Bill Moyers declared, “Corporate greed is
poisoning America—literally.”
The Huffington Post has pages and pages
dedicated to it, and the whole Occupy Wall Street movement was founded upon it.
And of course, who could forget, “In this world…where white folks’ greed runs a
world in need.”

Financially speaking, my wife Michelle and I are disciples
of the late Larry Burkett. Michelle worked full time for Larry’s ministry
Christian Financial Concepts (now Crown Financial Ministries) from 1997 until
2002. After the birth of our first child, she worked part time from home and
continues in that capacity today. My life was changed dramatically very early
in our marriage when I went through Larry’s How
to Manage Your Money (HTMYM) Bible study (which is now over 20 years old).

In the study, Larry spends a lot of time talking about debt.
Of course, in our culture today, when it comes to financial matters, debt
remains topic number one. One of the early chapters in HTMYM is entitled “The
Perils of Money.” In this chapter, along with later ones such as “Motives for
Accumulating Wealth,” and “How Much is Enough?” Larry also spends a lot of time
dealing with the issue of greed.

When it comes to greed, Larry makes a great point that often
escapes most people, especially those who think that only the rich or large
corporations are capable of greed: an attitude of greed can creep in whether
one is blessed with a great deal in the way of material possessions or very
little. Case in point is the raid on the Walmarts in Springhill and MansfieldLouisiana
by EBT (food stamp) card carriers.

As you’ve no-doubt heard by now, on Saturday October 12, due
to a glitch that occurred during a routine back-up test, the EBT system went
down in several states. According to Xerox, a vendor for the EBT system, as a
result of the glitch, EBT card limits were erased. Most stores put a hold on
EBT purchases, or at least called to verify balances, but not the Walmarts in
Springhill and Mansfield.

Walmart executives told these stores to allow purchases to
continue. As word spread of Walmart’s decision, the stores were flooded with
those ready to take advantage. What resulted was a shopping frenzy that was
reportedly worse than any Black Friday spree ever witnessed. Shoppers packed
buggies to the rim, with some filling as many as eight to ten carts. Meat
coolers were emptied and the store shelves were left bare (no small feat for
anyone who’s familiar with today’s Walmart).

One observer, who took cell phone video of the shopping
carnage, concluded that it was simply human nature that led the shoppers to
fill their carts to overflowing. Another couple called it “plain theft, that's
stealing that's all I got to say about it.” They’re both right.

The Walmart EBT raid is simply another example of the
mentality and behavior that results from our entitlement culture. Left to
ourselves, and enabled by Big Government that is ready and willing to buy
votes, “plain theft” is the natural human reaction when one has been
conditioned by out of control Big Government handouts. We see this behavior
time and again (more often than a media replete with liberals would like to
report).

As I noted
last year, for several months after winning a $1 million state lottery
jackpot, 25-year-old Michigan
resident, Amanda Clayton, collected thousands of dollars in state assistance.
Clayton reportedly received approximately $5,500 in food stamps and public
medical benefits. She was exposed by a Detroit
news station, WDIV-TV4, in March of 2012 and was arrested for welfare fraud.

When confronted by the Detroit
station and asked if she felt that she had a right to the money, Clayton
replied, “I mean I kinda do.” She further added, “I feel that it’s okay because
I mean, I have no income and I have bills to pay. I have two houses.” Clayton
then declared that she intended to continue to use her benefits until she was
cut off.

In June of 2010 Leroy Hick won $2 million in a Michigan state lottery
TV show. In May of 2011, the Detroit News noted that, according to Hick’s
attorney, Michigan’s
state “Department of Human Services determined he was still eligible for food
stamps.”

Fick declared, “If you’re going to try to make me feel bad,
you’re not going to do it.” His attorney added, “I am not going to sit and
debate the ethics of this…from his standpoint, he did what he was supposed to
do — he informed the state, and the state said he could keep using the card.
The problem is with the state.”

Do you think the Walmart raiders felt as if they had won the
lottery? Do you think they “feel bad” because of their behavior? I doubt it. Of
course, such behavior is often what results when human beings are perpetually
handed things that they don’t have to work for. Of course, not everyone
receiving welfare is guilty of greed, but make no mistake about it, with
one-out-of-six Americans receiving food stamps, we are almost certainly dealing
with a rampant culture of greed.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

As we continue our march towards Sodom and Gomorrah, the pagans leading the L.A. schools are trying to hasten our arrival. The second largest school district in the United States has decided that it wants its teachers to wear badges identifying themselves as LGBT "allies."

As they kicked off the event Thursday, L.A. school superintendent John Deasy said the effort was necessary to prevent gay students from being bullied. In a statement to the L.A. Times, Deasy said "We want all of our youth and staff to know that it is safe to be you (homosexual) in LAUSD."

According to the Daily Caller, "The front sides of the badges have the word 'ally' written on them in several different languages, which will help teachers celebrate the fabulousness of gay students, gay fellow teachers, and other gays, whose gayness automatically merits universal applause and celebration. Allies are straight supporters of gay people and gay marriage.

Deasy takes the normal liberal chant of "tolerance" even further as he told CBS News that he wanted the school staff to be not just tolerant, but accepting. "It is safe to be you. We are proud of who you are,” he said. “Our campuses don’t want tolerance, we want acceptance."

I wonder if LA schools are just as "tolerant" or "accepting" of those who deem homosexual behavior wicked and sinful? What if a teacher (or student) chose to wear a pro-family or pro-marriage badge? Would Deasy feel just as proud of such free-speech?

Howmanytimesdoesithave to be said that the same-sex marriage movement is not simply about marriage? (And for that matter, neither are anti-bullying campaigns just about bullying.) This is about sex and about legitimizing, through the American judicial system, a sexual lifestyle that the Bible deems, and many Americans find, immoral.

Whether or not same-sex marriage is the law of the land, government school systems that are run by liberals will take every opportunity to push the pro-homosexual agenda. Thus, children all across America that are cursed by being trapped in these liberal hell-holes will not only be taught that two mommies or two daddies (why limit it to two?) are okay, but that homosexual activity is normal and to be celebrated.

Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Recently, Jim Wallis, president and founder of Sojourners,
and a leader of the so-called “evangelical left,” declared
the government shutdown was “unbiblical.” On a video produced by Sojourners,
Wallis said, “There is a deeper problem here than politics. There is a
theological problem. As a Christian, I want to say, shutting down government is
unbiblical.”

With his long-time, deep-seated liberal worldview, Wallis
comes to this conclusion because the conservatives with whom he disagrees “don't
believe in government per se. They want to destroy the House [of
Representatives] and shut it down. That's not biblical.” He continues, “Secondly,
because government has a biblical responsibility to care for the poor, they're
against poor people. They get hostile to the poor because they are hostile to
government. That's also wrong. It's unbiblical.”

In addition to being a complete lie (there are at least
three in Mr. Wallis’ statement—is lying “unbiblical?”), it is a worn-out, but
reliable, tactic of liberals to attack conservatives as uncaring, cold-hearted,
uncompassionate, selfish brutes whenever the idea of shrinking government is
broached. But “unbiblical?” Please. (As my website has declared for years, “It
is no act of charity to be generous with someone else’s money.)

One really has to be committed to a Big Government worldview
to use Scripture to try to shame conservatives. The GOP presidential debate of
September 2011 provides a great example of Democrats, aided by their allies in
the Mainstream Media, using this line of attack.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer presented Ron Paul and other republicans
with a hypothetical: A 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health
insurance suddenly finds himself in need of six months of intensive
care—Blitzer wanted to know what the “compassionate conservative” response
would be.

Congressman Paul stated, “That’s what freedom is all about —
taking your own risks.” Thrilling liberals everywhere, Blitzer pressed the
matter and asked whether “society should just let him die.” The New York Times’
Paul Krugman piously concluded that, “The incident highlighted something that I
don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point,
American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.”

Asking “Where
Are the Compassionate Conservatives,” Washington Post columnist, Eugene
Robinson, noted that Blitzer next turned to Michele Bachmann, “whose popularity
with evangelical Christian voters stems, at least in part, from her own
professed born-again faith. Asked what she would do about the man in the coma,
Bachmann ignored the question and launched into a canned explanation of why she
wants to repeal President Obama's Affordable Care Act.”

Robinson then declared that, “According to the Gospel of
Matthew, Jesus told the Pharisees that God commands us to ‘love thy neighbor as
thyself.’ There is no asterisk making this obligation null and void if circumstances
require its fulfillment via government.”

The book of Luke records that, when Jesus is asked by “an
expert in the Law” what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus asks him what
the Law requires. The man answers correctly: “‘Love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your
mind,’ and ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

Sounding like a liberal pundit or politician, or as
Scripture puts it, “attempting to justify himself,” the man smugly asked Jesus,
“who is my neighbor?” That is when Jesus launches into the Good Samaritan
parable. Of course, the parable reveals that, as a true act of love, a
Samaritan—whom the Jews of Jesus’ day generally despised—took care of an
injured Jew on his own time and with his own resources. (Not quite the picture
of Obamacare that today’s liberals would have us believe.)

Liberals love to quote Scripture when they think it might
help them further their Big Government social agenda. They also love to talk
about compassion and morality but would prefer it if you left Scripture out of
it. Perhaps if more liberals were for posting the Ten Commandments in every
public school and post office in the U.S., more Americans would feel
comfortable putting health care in the hands of the federal government.

Perhaps if more liberals were willing to allow their
morality and compassion to move them to protect the most defenseless among
us—the unborn—more Americans would take them seriously when they talk in terms
of “moral visions,” “compassion,” or “caring for the poor.”

Why would any sincere Christian want to put caring for the
poor, or any other charitable act for that matter, in the hands of a godless
secular government (the type of government that, of course, most of today’s
liberals crave)? Is it Christ-like to support legislation that promotes
servitude, dependence, and massively grows government—to the tune of trillions
of dollars—all the while piling up more and more debt?

The bottom line here is that most liberals, at least those
who end up getting elected, do not allow Christian morality to guide their
politics. (Is that not the song-and-dance we get from Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden,
et al when it comes to abortion?) Instead, bowing at the altar of Big
Government, they simply align their politics with whatever morality will get
them elected or re-elected. (See the same-sex marriage debate.)

Good government should be rooted in Christian morality. (All
law is rooted in some morality.) As I’ve said recently, good government must
recognize what it means truly to come to the aid of those in need; what it
takes truly to change bad behavior—something that “gets to the heart” of
individuals—and, at best, partner with such efforts, or at least, do nothing to
hinder them. Most importantly, good government should never enact laws that are
contradictory to the laws of God. As Blackstone taught us, “[The] laws laid
down by God are the eternal immutable laws of good and evil…This law of nature
dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It
is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no
human laws are of any validity if contrary to this…”

Sunday, October 6, 2013

The left-wing media, and no doubt the low-information voters
who lap up their drivel, have got themselves in another faux tizzy over a GOP
politician’s (this time it’s Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett) comments on
same-sex marriage. You can tell that Corbett is near election time (he’s up for
re-election this year).

The Atlanta
Journal-Constitution reported that Corbett “compared same-sex marriage to
incest in a TV interview.” Actually, what Corbett did, was to say that an analogy,
where same-sex marriage was compared to child marriage, that his legal team
used while defending true (biblical) marriage, was not a good analogy.
Responding to a reporter, Corbett said that “I think a much better analogy would have been brother and sister, don’t
you?”

The AJC piece
(courtesy of Newsy.com it says near the top) doesn’t use the phrase “same-sex”
marriage. While describing Corbett’s “profoundly sad and disturbing” comments
it uses the phrasing “the marriage of gay couples.” Corbett never mentions
incest or sex at all. Of course, for many liberals almost everything comes down
to sex. Because, you see, for the left this debate isn’t really about marriage,
it’s about homosexuality, and forcing its legitimacy upon us through any means
necessary.

Apparently it
continues to escape most, if not all, on the left, that eventually one must
“discriminate” when it comes to defining marriage. I suppose, at least at this
point anyway, that incest is a line too far for many liberals. But why? Why the
moral outrage over incest? What’s wrong with incest? Who or what says that
incest is wrong? What moral code are liberals using to condemn incest?

Apparently it
also escapes most liberals that, whether people realize it or not, our
objections to incest almost exclusively stem from a biblical admonition against
it. Why else oppose it? Because of the likely genetic harm faced by children
produced from such relationships? Since when does the left concern itself with
the unborn? After all, we all know well their solution to such problems.

Make no mistake
about it, if it became politically popular to support incest, the left would be
all on board. Of course, such positions are easy when one has little to no
moral standards at all.

(See the articles and columns I've linked to on homosexuality and marriage here.)

In God

Like Trevor's Website!

Follow Trevor on Twitter

IF YOU ENJOY THIS SITE, PLEASE CONSIDER PURCHASING MY BOOK.

The Miracle and Magnificence of America reveals how, from the time of Columbus until the modern era, the Hand, the Word, the Wisdom, and the Blessings of God worked in the lives of individuals, events, and institutions to shape the United States of America into the greatest nation the world has ever known.

If you enjoy this site, please consider purchasing our book. It is a great gift for young couples!

In Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World, Trevor and Michelle will tell you candidly how they paid off their debt, built their home without a mortgage, and have lived debt free since 1999, raising four children on a teacher's salary.

My Beautiful Family!

About Me

I was born in 1969 to Edsel and Carolyn Thomas and have lived all my life in Northeast Georgia. I've been a follower of Jesus since 1986. I am originally from White County, where I graduated from high school and lived for the first twenty-plus years of my life. (Most of my family and my wife’s family live in White County.) Michelle and I married on January 31, 1998. We have 4 beautiful children (three boys and one girl): Caleb, born 2002; Jesse, born 2004; Caroline born 2006; and Noah born in 2008. We currently reside in the North Hall area. I have a BS degree in physics from the University of North Georgia, an MEd in mathematics education from the University of North Georgia, and an EdS in mathematics education from the University of Georgia. I've been teaching high school mathematics (public and private) since 1993. In 2013 my wife and I published Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. In 2016 I published The Miracle and Magnificence of America. I have been writing opinion columns since 2001. I have been blogging (though not with my own blog) since 2007. My hobbies include anything that allows me to spend time with my family, and includes action movies, swimming, hunting, fishing, gardening, and maintaining my lawn. I also enjoy most sports that involve a ball, and try (somewhat) hard to not cuss while watching the Georgia Bulldogs, the Atlanta Falcons, Braves, and Hawks, and the Dallas Cowboys.